Haters on the March!
Heavens! The extremists are in the streets again. As I write, racially motivated opponents of Arizona’s new law that is intended to curb illegal immigration are festooning the state Capitol with swastikas — swastikas! — made of refried beans and are planning legal action to block the law from taking effect. The world’s most buffoonsh political figure, the “Rev.” Al Sharpton, has called for a boycott and is said (though this cannot be confirmed at press time) to be calling on Tawana Brawley to speak at an anti-anti-imigration rally. Naturally, The New York Times, MSNBC, CNN, and kindred media outlets are set to repudiate these new outbreaks of hate and racist incitements to violence, narrow-mindedness, bigotry, etc., etc. Look for it tomorrow on the Daily KOS and other web sites dedicated to rooting out irrational prejudice and exposing the sore losers who don’t understand that elections have consequences and who won’t give a new law a chance but who divisively call for the repeal of the will of the people.
A friend who is visiting Arizona wrote to tell me exactly what was happening:
I see the haters are out there again, up to their old tricks. Why, there was Al Sharpton and his gang out there in the streets of Phoenix denouncing people who disagree with them in the most vile terms. Where does this hatred come from? It’s downright un-American. Think of it, marching in the streets, denouncing government and attacking laws, using hyperbole and exaggeration. This is bound to hurt them. And the worst thing is — they’re calling for the repeal of a law that was just signed. They won’t even give it a chance, and they refused to compromise before it was passed. Now, this is doubly un-American: protesting a law, denouncing government, and actually calling for the repeal of a law that was passed by a constitutional majority. I’ve seen everything now. I’m sure Al Sharpton and his gang are going to get it in the press for daring to do anything so far outside our traditions of fair play and democratic government. Where are the leaders calling on them to stop? Nancy Pelosi should get on television right now to tell them to stop before they hurt someone. And if someone gets hurt, it will be her fault, also the fault of CBS, NBC, ABC, and CNN for encouraging them. It can’t be long now before Al Sharpton is compared to those nasty tea-party people.
I’m opening a book on this, the Pelosi statement and the Sharpton-tea party comparison: any takers? (Hint: take a page from Goldman Sachs and short them both!)
Does this mean Sharpton’s committing sedition? Or is dissent patriotic again? Are swastikas back to being legitimate protest symbols? I’m getting whiplash from the MSM’s narrative …
Reported today (April 26, 2010) — President O: “It will be up to each of you to make sure that the young people, African Americans, Latinos, and women, who powered our victory in 2008 stand together once again.” That’s in a video being sent to the 13 million member strong Organizing for America email list.
Is that post-racial racism and/or a coalition of those who perceive themselves as victims?
Do we need anymore evidence that Mr. Obama harbors extreme dislike for people of flesh colored complexion.
Democrats are wholeheartedly committed to race card politics. It may even be the number one number tactic in their playbook. The immigration problem would have been mostly resolved years ago if these South and Central American illegals possessed blue eyes and blond hair. As matter of fact—Hispanic American citizens would be leading the charge. They are, after all, often the ones who are economically hurt by the competition from these illegal workers. Also, hardly anyone would be saying diddlysquat if Arizona’s new law directly impacted lighter skinned illegals from Canada.
I don’t know which site came up with it but the “taco bagger” extremists must be stopped…. we can’t have them rioting in the street before long they will be blowing up building and lynching ppl in the streets.
“swastikas — swastikas! — made of refried beans”
I’m sorry, Roger, I know that all of this is very serious, and I happen to be for stricter immigration control, but I can’t stop laughing when I try to visualize a refried bean swastika.
One has to admit it’s an brilliant way of saying, “we are the new jews,” and calling it vandalism as many are doing may be technically correct, but in reality it just adds to the joke.
Good post. Say, someone told me there was something useful around here, where PJTV had interviewed recognized legal experts (and not just from their small corner of thinking) about the bill, and then had compared that to what the MSM was saying and then used that to discredit the MSM. So, where is that?
Say, someone told me lonewhacko was, well, a lone whacko. A sad, lonely little man more interested in promoting himself than in actually contributing anything, anywhere, anytime.
That fact that this possible unconstitutional, and definitely dangerous law does not disturb you is a strange. This law is on a path to what the Germans did to the Jews. It is a scary law down a slippery slope. I know you understand sarcasm because this piece is chock full of it. So I would assume you understand the swastikas made of refried beans to be sarcasm. I we going to start making latin americans were badges next I mean come on this law is preposterous.
Damn, it didn’t take long to Godwin this, did it?
Just wondering….have you even READ the law, or are you going by the Rev. Al’s characterization of it?
A cop has to detain you for something else, like domestic violence or breaking a traffic law. If he/she has some suspicion you aren’t here legally, THEN they can start the process to determine if you are guilty of this misdemeanor. (BTW, if you don’t think they can already ask you “for your papers”, you haven’t gotten a speeding ticket lately, have you? What do you think the request for “driver’s license, registration and proof of insurance” is, anyway? Aren’t those legal papers you have to provide to an officer on request? I think…yes, they are! And in case you aren’t familiar with Arizona law, you can’t get a driver’s license without proof of citizenship or proof that you are here legally if you are not a citizen. You are ALREADY providing proof of your legal status when you present an Arizona driver’s license.)
The protesters would LIKE you to think it kicks into gear because you “are walking around, minding your own bizness and you look Messican”, but there is a much higher threshold than that. They carefully had this thing crafted to stand up to a legal challenge. If it was that shaky, believe me, the ACLU would have gotten to the courthouse to challenge it before the ink was dry on the Governor’s signature.
They made similar rants and raves about requiring proof of legal status for a driver’s license, and when they instituted the law that made hiring illegal aliens punishable for a business by shutting them down. Those laws are still on the books in Arizona. This one will more than likely still be on the books in a year or two, too.
Now if only the Precedent would get serious about fixing the problem that prompted passing this law in the first place…..
Sending ILLEGAL aliens back home is hardly comparable to what the Germans did to Jews. The very idea is disgusting — the kind of mindless accusation one has come to expect from the brain-dead Left.
I am clearly not comparing it to the holocaust so calm yourself. However, I think there are similar parallels to how everything started in Nazi Germany. First, during economic hardship you pick a group of people and start pinning all the problems on them. Second, you start making laws that are aimed at just a particular group of people. The problem is that it is a slippery slope that AZ has started down.
“However, I think there are similar parallels to how everything started in Nazi Germany. ”
Geez, “similar parallels” sounds exactly like a comparison of Arizona and Nazi Germany.
“However, I think there are parallels to how everything started in Nazi Germany.”
There are “parallels” between EVERY law EVERY government passes that affects ANY group whatever and Nazi Germany’s treatment of the Jews. If tomorrow a law would stiffen the punishment for driving with a broken tail-light and the reason would be that it was discovered it causes lots of accidents, that too is “picking on a group of people” — those who drive without tail-lights — and claiming they are “responsible for all the trouble” during times of “rise in accidents”.
Any two things whatever are similar in numerous ways. You are just like Hitler — you too eat breakfast and wear shirts, don’t you? You are a man and not a woman? But it would be totally absurd, of course, to claim such parallels make you similar to Hitler. The question is, do the parallels mean anything?
Your example is horrible. People can changer their headlights, but cannot change if they look Hispanic. Like Jewish people cannot change the fact that they had Jewish parents. We are talking about ethnicity here, not car ownership. I just think it is a slippery slope people should be worried about going down.
Ok, first it is clear to me that you have a very limited understanding of law in general. The ACLU could not have brought any action before it was signed because the case would have not been Ripe. As it was not a law yet there would be no way to show harm and thus no one would have standing. Second, I did read the law, and 11-1051 just says that they can ask you for papers after any lawful contact. This could be for a terry stop, which is in fact a really low bar. Third, Lindsey Graham is on record as saying the law is probably unconstitutional. This law takes away everyone’s rights.
Wow. Noted legal scholar Lindsey Graham doesn’t like it? By all means, scrap it then!
Please re-read my post. I said that the ACLU could run to the courthouse AFTER the ink was dry on the governor’s signature. Dry ink….signature…..to most people with average abilities in reading comprehension, that implies that the bill has been signed into law and could therefore be enforced at a later date. If you are going to pick apart what I said, at least don’t waste my time lecturing me by restating what I have already declared, and then telling me I don’t know what I’m talking about.
I’m just wondering where you were the last few years when my husband, a legal immigrant, faced possible misdemeanor charges, a fine and deportation if he didn’t present a law enforcement officer with proof of his status on demand. But since that’s a FEDERAL provision, that’s ok with you, I guess. (We won’t even discuss the possibility of being barred from entry into the US for ten years if he was determined to be here illegally, which also must be dandy with you, too.) It only violates the 4th amendment if a state requires he do the same thing, right?
“If it was that shaky, believe me, the ACLU would have gotten to the courthouse to challenge it BEFORE the ink was dry on the Governor’s signature.” You said Before, but nice try. I agree with you anyone with a modicum of reading ability could correctly see what you wrote. However, apparently you cannot even read what you wrote. Also, for your information the ACLU has criticized the law already. In addition the law does not go into effect for 90 so I expect individuals to bring suit then. Look I am sorry if your husband had a run in with the police. I do not know the circumstances behind the interaction he had with the police. Law is specific to the circumstances. For instance if he was entering the country the law is different. I mean was it when your husband was entering the country or near a boarder check point? All I can speak to is the way the AZ law is written. The way it is written I think it is unconstitutional. You should also think it is unconstitutional and it will essentially mean everyone has to carry around papers while they are in AZ now. I do not think the whole law is bad just the unconstitutional part. I thought that was the tea parties big thing?
Umm, how to break this to you…
The wording of the Arizona anti-illegal-immigrant law is very close to the Federal Immigration law, which has been on the books up in Washington for about fifty years.
You know, the one that the Feds refuse to enforce?
I disagree because this one seems to be a pretty big violation of everyone’s 4th amendment rights. For people who are big into the constitution you sure are willing to look the other in what could be a big violation.
Hey Brian,
Since you’re so big on the Constitution, you are familiar with Article IV, Section 4, right?
Amazing how the Constitution only applies when liberals want to use it to justify what THEY want. When conservatives argue for originalist interpretation, then the Constitution is a “living” document.
“Do not separate text from historical background. If you do, you will have perverted and subverted the Constitution, which can only end in a distorted, bastardized form of illegitimate government.”
–James Madison
Distorted, bastardized form of illegitimate government. Sounds about right to me. James Madison, BTW, was a principle author of the Constitution, so he probably knew what he was talking about. Almost prescient, I’d say, warning specifically not to reinterpret the words outside of their original context.
I would say that you seem to be suffering from the same thing you accuse liberals of. I think the constitution applies all the time under all circumstances. You seem to be the one willing to throw the 4th under a bus when it is not convenient to your belief system. As reading it to the letter of the original intent section 4 talks about invasions. Unless you can show me otherwise the founding fathers did not have in mind illegal aliens anymore than the flood of Irish earlier in our history. Invade – to enter with arms to control or subdue.
This problem is not a new one.
from wiki:
“Immigration is the introduction of new people into a habitat or population. It is a biological concept and is important in population ecology, differentiated from emigration and migration.
”
How Eisenhower solved illegal border crossings from Mexico
http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0706/p09s01-coop.html
#7. Not only are the two situations not parallel at all — immigration control is the legal enforcement of a Constitutional mandate preventing non-citizens (of whatever race or ethnicity) from entering the country illegally, “Judenrein” was a concerted hate-program to eliminate a specific group of its own citizens from the face of the earth — but implicit in such comments is a notion that all people supporting the bill are white, all law Arizona enforcement people who will be enforcing the bill are white, and that all the people who will be charged under the law are non-whites.
The commenter directly following, #8, cites the very man who defeated Nazi Germany, knew Nazi Germany, saw the death camps first hand in Nazi Germany and knew its evils thereto — Dwight Eisenhower — deploying methods much more stringent than the new Arizona law. To quote #8′s link:
“On June 17, 1954 … [s]ome 750 agents swept northward through agricultural areas with a goal of 1,000 apprehensions a day. By the end of July, over 50,000 aliens were caught in the two states. Another 488,000, fearing arrest, had fled the country.
By mid-July, the crackdown extended northward into Utah, Nevada, and Idaho, and eastward to Texas.
By September, 80,000 had been taken into custody in Texas, and an estimated 500,000 to 700,000 illegals had left the Lone Star State voluntarily.”
Was Eisenhower, the man who led the D-Day Invasion and sent federal troops to Little Rock to enforce integration, a Nazi and a racist? Was Woodrow Wilson a Nazi for protecting the border against Pancho Villa?
Eisenhower and Wilson both understood the Federal Government has a Constitutional duty to enforce the borders. Federal elected officials swear an oath to do so upon taking office. Obama did so swear. That act was broadcast worldwide. Nancy Pelosi did so swear. Harry Reid did so swear. Yet they have been and are yet still failing to carry out their sworn duty — for what appears to me to be pure selfish political electoral considerations. Worse, they seem to be not only flaunting the rule of law they are in charge of, but also actively working to undermine it.
If anyone is divvying up people by race or color, if anyone is encouraging permanent poverty and subclass standings for an ethnic group, if anyone is sticking virtual ethnic badges on people instead of treating all peoples equally regardless of color, if anyone is hindering the full-fledged acceptance of _legal_ immigrants of whatever race or stripe into American society, it is the people who are exacerbating racial tension by continually and reflexively playing the race card and the Nazi card.
The recent speech by Obama encouraging political activism among all but, inexplicably, white males was decidedly more racially divisive both in specific content and overtones than the Arizona law. It is he, not Arizona lawmakers, who seems to view people as racial categories rather than individuals equal under the law.
Obama could make the reasons for this Arizona bill go away in a heartbeat — simply by doing his duty and fully and truly enforcing the border under current laws. Pelosi and Reid could also make the reasons for this bill go away by voting to build a border fence. They have not done so. They willfuly have not do so.
Arizona — for its own physical protection — has been reluctantly forced to act and do the job that elected Federal officials won’t do.
If you oppose open borders you better prove you don’t own black boots!
Deport them. It’s been done successfully multiple times in the past. In fact, three of our most well-known presidents initiated successful illegal alien deportation programs. Two were Democrats including the original socialist FDR.
First, President Herbert Hoover, during the great depression, ordered the deportation of all illegal aliens in order to make jobs available to American citizens that desperately needed work. My question is, why would you have to make an exception to “business as usual” to enforce the law?
Next, the greatly respected President Harry Truman deported over two million illegal aliens after World War II to create jobs for returning veterans.
Finally and most recently, beginning in 1954, the very popular and practical President Dwight Eisenhower successfully deported millions of illegal alien Mexican nationals in a program called “Operation Wetback”, which lasted two years. Again, this was reportedly done to make more jobs available for World War II and Korean War veterans.
Why are we now reluctant to protect ourselves? It’s the same unresolved by the federal gov’t issue and the same issues. Warm up the buses, boys. God bless Arizona.
Read more: http://www.sdnn.com/sandiego/2010-02-20/blog/a-more-perfect-union/ladd-it-isnt-impossible-to-stop-illegal-immigration#ixzz0mK8gtrqb
All of the illegal aliens should express their outrage by taking Sharpton’s advice and boycott Arizona.
Today Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) said the following to Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano in a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing.
“It is impossible for me and any other serious Democrat to get this body to move forward until we prove to the American people we can secure our borders,”
“I believe we can do it by 2012 if we’re smart.”
Now we know for sure: Lindsey is one of the “serious Democrats,” or a RINO as we say in this part of the country.
The “mostly peaceful” protests are dissimilar to the Tea Party protests in one way; they are only “mostly” peaceful.
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/brad-wilmouth/2010/04/27/fnc-highlights-media-disinterest-violence-pro-illegal-immigration-pro
I especially love this part:
“Activists are planning a challenge of their own, hoping to block the law from taking effect by arguing that it encroaches on the federal government’s authority to regulate immigration and violates people’s constitutional rights by giving police too much power.”
Or as Victor Davis Hanson explains it, “Disobeying Federal Laws Always Trumps Obeying State Ones?
wow you people are getting excited over nothing. Take a deep breath. Some of you need to stop hyperventilating, and find out more about this bill. I’ll bet those of you wringing your hands over this just love the health care bill that noone read before voting for it.
I consider myself a small-government security. Just because Obama is against this expansion of government powers in Arizona does not make it wrong. Sheriff Joe is not a tea party libertarian, he is an advocate of an expanded police state. Illegal immigrants are free economic agents, wanting to participate in a truly free market, which means open markets, legalizing drugs, and opening immigration. Small government does not mean the police can arrest you for not carrying ID documents. Are you folks conservatives? Do you want the national ID card? If the law does manage to throw out 500,000 illegal immigrants, it will radically depress housing prices. Many illegals have legal resident relatives as well. It will also increase, not decrease crime rates, which are at historic lows, as police encounter decreased cooperation in immigrant communities. Viva la libertad….
“Illegal immigrants are free economic agents, wanting to participate in a truly free market, which means open markets, legalizing drugs, and opening immigration.”
They are also criminals. They begin by violating the standing laws on immigration, and follow through by committing fraud through the use of forged IDs or stolen identities. They also frequently ignore laws regarding occupancy and other health and safety laws.
I’m all for liberty, and have no issue with people wanting to change some of the laws we have. But illegals are criminals first, and show no interest in obeying the laws of the land.
I consider myself a small-government advocate and a member of the tea party. Just because Obama is against this expansion of government powers in Arizona does not make it wrong. Sheriff Joe is not a tea party libertarian, he is an advocate of an expanded police state. Illegal immigrants are free economic agents, wanting to participate in a truly free market, which means open markets, legalizing drugs, and opening immigration. Small government does not mean the police can arrest you for not carrying ID documents. Are you folks conservatives? Do you want the national ID card? If the law does manage to throw out 500,000 illegal immigrants, it will radically depress housing prices. Many illegals have legal resident relatives as well. It will also increase, not decrease crime rates, which are at historic lows, as police encounter decreased cooperation in immigrant communities. Viva la libertad….
You are deliberately missing the point:
ILLEGAL ALIENS: I-L-L-E-G-A-L A-L-I-E-N-S
Get it?
ILLEGAL NOT PAYING HEALTH INSURANCE PERSON: I-L-L-E-G-A-L-N-O-T-P-A-Y-I-N-G-H-E-A-L-T-H-I-N-S-U-R-A-N-C-E-P-E-R-S-O-N
Get your health insurance yet? What part of illegal don’t you understand? Or maybe in that case you will favor disobeying a law? You evil person, Obama himself should throw you in jail!
Frankly, I don’t care if something is illegal if that illegality is framed by an immoral law. Go illegal aliens!!! You are my heroes.
Consensual relationship: business hires illegal immigrant, illegal immigrant wants to be hired.
Get it? Who is the victim here? They are escaping business regulation! Good for them!
JR, it’s already federal law that non-citizens have to carry their paperwork with them. How many years have you spent trying to get that law changed, if it offends you so much?
(And take a look at Mexico’s immigration laws. Why not go protest theirs, rather than our much, much more lax ones?)
Yes, but the federal law does not amount to racial profiling and a constitutional violation.
The Dems have been unable to convert the country into a socialist dystopia. Try as they might, the majority of Americans are simply not buying it.
The Dems work very hard to create and expand an underclass in this country that will vote for them and their policies. The idea is to create and perpetuate poverty and the social decay that goes along with it. The Dems then promote themselves and their agenda as the “solution” to these problems, and work to create an us-vs-them mentality among the people that they have victimized in this way.
Worst of all, their efforts to do these things are completely transparent and obvious. Their response to anyone who calls them on this nonsense is to scream “raaaaaacism!” or something else that is equally absurd.
The DHS is supposedly funding development of horrific crowd control weapons, like spraying psychotropic drugs, the sound blasters, and even a spray that totally entangles crowds–to be used against law-abiding Americans, of course. If non-Hispanic Americans were to counter-demonstrate in the streets and violence broke out, my guess is that the feds would attack the non-Hispanics and set off racial warfare in this country.
I totally support the new law in Arizona and I hope it is followed by all the states. American jobs are fallinf fast to the all of the illegals and it’s past time that the so called people in Washington start doing their jobs instead of sitting on their fat xxxxx getting a big pay check for it. I thought they were supposed to be working for us and our rights, the illegals and a few organizations say this is against their rights, you’re in the country illegaly you don’t have any rights here. Go back where you came from, come into the country legally and I will greet you with open arms in the meantime GET OUT.
“I am calling for an end to the civil and human rights violations being committed in Maricopa County,” Rev. Al said in a press release issued this morning,
???
How about an and to ILLEGAL entry?? How about calling for an and to illegals coming here and breaking our laws? Best of all, how about Al Sharpton minding his own business in his own state.
If something isn’t done soon, there will be lot’s of bodies littering the desert. That’s something nobody wants, but lacking other solutions, that will happen.